"Guns in the Family," Walter Johnson
Hi everyone!
First off, I really liked how Johnson ended his essay. Last week, we discussed memoirs, and one of
the specific questions we discussed was about relevance. Specifically, the question of “who cares?” While that’s a very complicated question, I
think that Johnson’s turn at the end of the piece is one possible way to answer
it. I think that Johnson makes
the audience care by connecting his personal experiences to a wider
conversation, specifically to the issue of gun control.
Secondly, I really like how the essay progresses! The essay
opens with hunting, a form of violence that many people generally find permissible,
but eventually escalates, until the audience is unsettled by the casual nature
of the violence in the piece. And then
Johnson takes that violence, and equates it to power and control. I think it was a really effective way for
Johnson to force his audience to think deeply on gun ownership in the United
States, what it represents, and the negative impact that such an emphasis on
gun ownership has had on society!
Thirdly, I really enjoyed how Johnson utilized specific
images in his essay! I noticed that
Johnson typically ends the sections of the essay on a very concrete, striking
image (blood seeping through butcher paper, silence, etc.). It was really interesting to see Johnson
build his argument through the use of very striking images, as opposed to more
traditional methods. While Johnson doesn’t
come right out and advocate for gun control until the very end of the piece, I
don’t think the audience is necessarily surprised by this turn, because Johnson
has spent the whole piece directly tying guns to violence, dominance, control,
and silence.
Which leads me to my questions! While I personally find making an argument
through image, metaphor, and other poetic devices super compelling, it does beg
the question. How clear should a writer
be when arguing a point? When does craft
and artistry begin to impede the audience’s ability to interpret your intended
meaning?
Great question! That's the exact question I was grappling with as I ended this piece. I'll be honest here, the ending of this essay felt a little off to me and I felt that there was an awkward pivot from personal stories to explicitly stating the argument. I immediately felt that I wish the author had left the opinion in the hands of the personal stories and let me interpret the argument they are trying to make, especially since I think it was fairly easy to conclude what the author was arriving at. I think the stories from the author's past points the reader towards the idea of gun ownership being a trait of toxic masculinity and unjustified worry towards some "zombie-hippie-commie-black-homo apocalypse." I also thought some of the argument made on the last final pages didn't perfectly coincide with the stories within the essay such as school shootings being linked to "two decades of continuous war." It's fair argument and almost certainly a contributing variable, but the point seems disjointed from the hunting stories and Virgil the neighbor stories. If the end of the essay wants to begin delving into the contributing factors of school shootings, in my opinion there is a lack of mention of mental health. I believe the last couple pages of the essay could be a great start to a different essay, but I wish the author had not stated their argument so explicitly and let the interpretations of the stories speak for themselves.
ReplyDeleteGreat post and questions, Brooke! I suppose I shouldn’t’ be surprised that you’d wonder about the effectiveness of creative form and artistry in the piece 😊. And Jake, I totally agree with you on the whiplash that the end of the essay seems to cause—while reading, I found myself thinking back to the rest of the piece and wondering if the writer couldn’t have found a more effective/less stark way to include his arguments in the essay.
ReplyDeleteAlso, while on the topic of critiques for “Guns in the Family,” I felt that there were several untied ends that Johnson introduced and never saw through. For example, he describes Virgil Rivers as possibly being his first love, but he talks much more about his father, Mr. Rivers, than Virgil himself. I felt like this inclusion needed more of a discussion of his relationship/connection to Virgil, which would also make the contrast to Mr. Rivers much more powerful. Second, I really wished Johnson had revealed who or what was caught in the Rivers’ hunting decoys; was it an animal of some sort (thus highlighting the paranoia that leads many people to believe they “need” a gun to defend themselves)? was it someone under the influence who found their way into the wrong garage? was it Virgil or one of his siblings in the garage? We never get the answer, and while Johnson may have had a reason for this, I can’t see it—I’m too distracted by the unsolved mystery of the decoys.
To answer Brooke’s wonderful questions, I would give the cop-out response of it depends. I talked about this in my response for week 3 (?) on Samantha Kobs’ video essay, and I think the same principle extends here: as long as the form serves rather than overtakes the content of the essay/piece, creativity in presentation is a wonderful thing. If you fill your essay with flowery metaphors or lines from classic French cinema, make sure they help you show your point, not just your ability to use metaphor or your knowledge of French cinema. In “Guns in the Family,” Johnson does a wonderful job of keeping his inclusion of details and descriptive writing to-the-point, such as the parchment-wrapped geese you mention in your original post. That said, he’s not exactly playing with form here, so I wonder what else he could do with this essay to make it even more striking.
also, apologies in advance for any typos/confusions in my post. My cat insisted on crawling on my keyboard throughout my writing process, so he may have diabolically copy-pasted or deleted some things without me realizing.
DeleteGreat analysis and questions, Brooke! I agree that Johnson is very effective in using his personal experiences to connect with the reader. Also, his vivid descriptions of the various settings in his childhood years are stark and compelling. I also agree with Jake on the “awkward pivot” and with Nora on the “whiplash” that occurs in the final paragraphs of Johnson’s essay. My neck is still a bit sore. The imagery that Johnson painstakingly crafts is one of a very troubled culture in his backwoods section of Missouri.
ReplyDeleteWith the final paragraphs in his essay, Johnson abruptly shifts from memoir to persuasive essay. As a reader, I feel like a victim of a bait-and-switch maneuver. Apparently, the point all along was to argue for gun control, but this was coyly wrapped in the imagery of Johnson’s hardscrabble childhood. For me, this essay cannot decide if it is memoir or persuasion. If it’s persuasion – and I believe that it is – regaling the reader with poignant prose about a fraught boyhood, only to wait until the third-to-the-last paragraph to (apparently) advocate for the repeal of the Second Amendment is rather disingenuous. In other words, I believe Johnson should be much clearer in arguing his point and should not attempt to cloak persuasion in memoir.
Furthermore, Johnson writes, “we can start by banning the tools.” All guns? All weapons? Baseball bats? We need a little more specificity here. And how do we ban these “tools?” Federal, state, or local legislation? Johnson doesn’t say. He then presents a very damning history of the Second Amendment, which could be highly persuasive, but he can’t even bring himself to directly call for its repeal. Take a position already. He’s also opposed to “putting people in cages.” Well, I believe we all are. But is he also suggesting that jails and prisons be abolished? He doesn’t say. He also hints at possibly disarming the police but dances around this issue as well.
Johnson is also opposed to white supremacy and toxic masculinity. Good to know. But where’s the plan – or even rough sketch – to tackle these very serious problems? In short, he uses his prose to paint himself as a progressive reformer born of a toxic, gun-worshiping culture, but he stops short of proposing any specific reforms. To address Brooke’s second question, I believe Johnson cleverly uses craft and artistry to create the appearance of championing enlightened social reforms, without actually taking any definitive stances or offering any specific proposals. Other than that, I really like this piece.
This is a good question! Personally, I think it’s really powerful to make an argument as clear as possible without actually saying it out loud (can you tell I’m a great fence-rider). I wasn’t a huge fan of how Johnson laid out his argument, it felt pretty unartistic and “whiplash”y to me, just like the comments above me had said I think this is the point where “show not tell” is most important. If you just tell someone your argument, it’s not very impactful and most likely won’t leave any resonating feelings with the reader. You have to show your argument, whether that be through stories, memories, or feelings. That is the way to really connect with the reader and get them on board with the point you want to make. Like how Scott said, Johnson was pretty vague with what he wanted done, and I truly think it would have come across better if he had shown us what he wanted as opposed to telling us. It is a very fine line, but I think as a nonfiction writer it is one of the most important parts of arguing something.
ReplyDeleteHowdy Brooke!
ReplyDeleteI really think it depends on if there is a specific "intent." With most essays there always has to be some sort of thesis or overarching theme--but not all of them have to contain some sort of political resonance. Sometimes good storytelling is just good storytelling and doesn't need to be driven by some crucial argument. If there is, however, I don't know if it should be explicitly spelled out. The point of any work or art is to have the reader come to their own conclusions. If you shout directly in their face about it, they'll pick up on that. Then anyone who's on board for it will continue to read along and anyone who isn't will leave or not take it seriously. So maybe the directness of your message should correlate with the range of the audience you hope to reach.
Johnson makes great use of imagery and characterization throughout this essay and really drew me into each of his anecdotes. His ability to craft each scene with such cinematic detail was what connected me with his essay. As soon as he lets go of that, however, the verisimilitude was broken. His stories got me asking questions and reminiscing over my own personal experiences, which in turn maybe me think more critically about guns. And then I was fed a spoonful of political dogma that completely disengaged me. I agree with most of his points but I still felt disappointed; I just wanted the story to speak for itself. There are spaces for more direct political messaging where there is a more interactive discourse, but delivering it as a monologue at the end of an otherwise enticing essay is a recipe for unhappy readers.
Hey Brooke, great post! I have to agree, there was a lot of great imagery and how Johnson effectively progresses his essay that drew me in as a reader. That said, I did find how he ended it a little odd, a lot of endings (like with Virgil) left open. I understood that he wanted to discuss this talking about this topic and he started off well with a great way to segway into his main point but the way he ended it and brought it his argument and reasoning at the end felt confusing to me and he switched gears so suddenly I wondered how he’d got us there. I also feel like the issue with guns was underlying throughout his piece but he didn’t state any facts or anything and then delve back into the story and instead left it all for the conclusion and it was really off-putting.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think that a writer should be clear enough that everyone knows what is going on but not so clear that it’s not worth writing the piece. I think Johnson started out great here but he lost some of the focus in his story-telling instead of on his main point that he wanted to get across and have his audience understand. While Johnson’s craft and weaving of a story are very well-done, his argument fails to make an impact and feels as if it was added on to try and tie in a reason for the piece. There were definitely ways he could’ve tied in his argument throughout and his sudden switch from story-telling leaves the readers wanting more and confused about what happened to the characters we’ve been learning about and what happened to them (what happened to them because of this issue?). Some of Johnson’s argument doesn’t exactly coincide with his story, like the school shooters and two decades of continuous war seemed out of place when discussing hunting and his father, etc before this, I get that he probably wanted to make a point with this, but he didn’t tie it in very well with the issues he was discussing within the hunting stories. I think Johnson makes a lot of good points and could’ve had better tie-ins but the way he rushingly executed them at the end made it hard to comprehend what exactly he wants to argue and accomplish with this piece.
Really nice post! This essay made me ponder if owning a gun or not is a good or bad idea. I think the beginning was great at setting the scene of what the essay would be about later on. I think the author should probably not have had a gun in his childhood if he had so many near death accidents with it which is the dad's fault. I do like Johnson's view on how gun ownership emphasis power, however I also think if we get rid of them then we only have the police to handle things and I think we all know how that sometimes goes. I think that if a writer wants to set a scene in the beginning of their essay they should be able too but I also think that the point should be made loud and clear so that way there isn't that "whiplashy" feeling that a lot of you guys are talking about and seem to not like. I also think that with the way lots of people are reading now and how they seem to not have much time and like to read short and to the point things like tweets and stuff like that, the essay could have been shorter with the focus on Johnson being awful with a gun in his possession and still got the point across that not everyone should be given a gun and that they should be responsible with it. I think it was interesting that he went to all of these gun classes and was still super unresponsible with it. I think his argument fails because to me it doesn't make much sense because if there are groups of armed people wouldn't you want to be armed too to protect yourself from them? Why would we want armed police that we don't already trust to be the only ones with guns? I think those are the questions and answers that Johnson should be saying.
ReplyDeleteThanks for starting us off, Brooke!
ReplyDeleteI think this essay is one that many of us in Wisconsin can find relatable parts or stories in. Maybe not directly in downtown Eau Claire, but the gun and hunting culture that Johnson paints in Missouri is very similar to rural farming communities, townships, or general non-cities in Wisconsin. That makes it feel familiar to me; I don't have to struggle to imagine the hunting scenes.
I agree with many of you above who commented on the "whiplash" of the last section of the essay. The turn from memoir to persuasion is a bit too stark for me, and I think the form isn't conducive to this change. I like Brooke's question of clarity surrounding intended meaning. You can pick up on Johnson's current opinion on guns and gun culture through his memoir section, though a lot more subtly than in his ending, and it makes me wonder if the essay would be stronger if he did away with the final page and a half of persuasion and instead injected more of those opinions in the anecdotal section. I think it would feel more comfortable than the strong twist at the end, yet would make his opinions more clear from the beginning. Clarity is important, obviously, but I don't think you have to sacrifice artistry for it most of the time.
Another idea would be to change the form. If it acted more as a braided essay with the anecdotal and persuasive sections braided together, or even if there was just a more even split between the two sections (maybe starting with a story, having the persuasive intent in the middle and ending with another, darker, story, like one with Virgil's father), those could be interesting to explore. I'm not sure if I would like the essay better if they were laid out like this, but I think it would be interesting to try and would have a more satisfying ending!
One final note: I agree with one of the points that Scott makes. I was unimpressed with Johnson's naming of the problems without tangible solutions. Just calling guns tools of white supremacy and toxic masculinity does little to enact any change, which is what he's calling for. To me, it feels like he is just confirming one side's opinions without making many persuasive points or tangible reforms that would change a gun advocate's mind. This probably goes back to the form, as well: there's only a short amount of space on the page that he gives himself to talk persuasively/informatively about this.
Brooke,
ReplyDeleteGreat post; you posit some very thoughtful questions here! Firstly, I want to make a connection here. This piece reminded me of those "Opinion Pieces" you see on news websites. An "Opinion Piece" on a purportedly reputable news site seems like an oxymoron, and this piece seemed to fall in the same category, in my opinion. I find myself agreeing with many of you in terms of the essay's intentions and function. Scott put it particularly well, that the essay seems disingenuous in its "bait and switch" tactics, in terms of functioning as a memoir at first, but then suddenly changing to a persuasive piece. Although craft and artistry (i.e. figurative language) are extremely important in any form of writing, the purpose and function of the piece take precedence when the piece has a specific goal, like persuading, for example. Although Johnson does a great job appealing to emotion through personal experience and a well-crafted narrative, the persuasion seems to be tacked on at the end with little direct connection to either the "big-picture" idea of gun control or the specific experiences Johnson had. While they are related in subject matter, Johnson does little in the way of connecting memoir and persuasion with some form of "take-away". While employing his own experience within the piece does appeal to pathos and increase credibility, it does not offer enough justification or basis for a persuasive stance on a topic such as gun control. His personal experience alone, while not unimportant, is not the experience of every person, and thus cannot be taken as sole reasoning to back up his calls for social reform. This essay feels more like the author is portraying himself in both an oppressed yet also morally superior light, while also only pandering emotionally to the reader without offering any practical "take-aways" or solutions to the issues brought up in the piece.
I feel that the rift or impedance in this piece starts to form when the piece breaks away from the memoir and begins dancing around the subject of gun control. The piece should either be a memoir or it should be a persuasive piece, and if it is going to be an effective persuasive piece, it cannot skirt around the subject, nor can it be morally or logically ambiguous when talking about practical solutions, or the "take-away"; in essence, the persuasive part of the piece. That's not to say, however, that memoirs cannot have "take-aways", most do, at least in the form of a moral or lesson, but a piece has to be genuine and up-front about its intention from the beginning.
First of all, I really like the points you made throughout your blog post. I really resonated with all that you were saying about the essay, and all the different methods of writing Johnson was using. To answer your questions, I believe that yes, you should be clear and concise about arguing a point in response to not wanting to lose your reader- but I think lines and boundaries can be crossed in order to respond to the different types of artistry you want to try out. Last semester I wrote an essay about personal memoir and I used a bunch of different poetic devices and when I finished reading it to the class a lot of people were left wondering what the actual essay was about. It was a little embarrassing because I thought I did a good job being experimental but in the end it lacked the basic structure of an essay and I went a little too overboard with using poetic devices. I think if I started out my essay with a little more clarity and gave a more concise backstory to the story I wanted to convey, I think I could have gone off the poetic depend if I wanted and it would have made more sense. But because I didn’t start off my essay with any clear evidence of what the essay was actually about I think that’s where I went wrong.
ReplyDeleteIn the essay Johnson writes, he starts off with a clear narrative of where the essay is going to go in terms of an underlying message of guns and his father. It’s not until the end where he starts using more of an artistry point of view with his writing about how guns have affected him, and the connection between his story and the story that lives among the narrative for many Americans. He does a good job at being clear and concise while also drawing together deeper meanings in his essay.
Brooke,
ReplyDeleteYou made such wonderful points in your blog post. As much as I enjoyed reading this piece, it felt a little out of place to me, which I think has a lot to do with my nationality. I did not grow up in the United States, instead, I was born and raised in Malaysia, where guns are typically not easily available to be sold to civilians like the people in the essay. The essay felt a little "draggy" to me i feel like I should know what the author is trying to point out towards the middle but I found myself fully understanding the message Johnson was trying to make at the end of the essay, which seems counter-productive to me. However, I agree with you that Johnson did an amazing job incorporating vivid imagery in his work!
Moving on to your questions, a writer should always be clear and concise when trying to argue a point. In this context, organizing one's thoughts is one of the most important things a writer should consider. Being concise is also a good way to inform your readers and prevent your readers from experiencing cognitive overload. I believe that when writers put too much emphasis on something like imagery to the point that it hinders the abilities for readers to resonate with the writer is something to look out for as sometimes it can seem rather "flashy". Or in other words, balance is key!
I think the end of an essay is such a huge piece that can really pull everything together, so connecting the end of it to the wider audience, to make people think beyond its contexts, is a huge thing for someone writing any type of material. An ending has to make us remember the work, it has to leave us with a lingering idea that will carry us on, even if just for a few hours. I love any type of work that does that, that keeps itself in your mind for hours or days just thinking about that last lingering idea. The progression also matters of course, like you talked about, since we have to enjoy the flow of what we are reading. I know I talk a lot in class about the flow aspect of things, and how disjointed flow is hard to read through and catches the reader quickly, especially in fiction, but nonfiction needs that same flow to keep interest, I'm not sure if I am alone in that fact but I certainly need the progression and flow to be smooth and make sense, and I agree that this piece really had what I needed for that. Images within an essay is another huge piece of flow to me. It helps that flow build and helps it grow throughout the progression. I love how you pointed all that out, because it all fits together to build the work, and it is all so important to the impact the work has on a reader. It is important to recognize all these points when talking about that impact on a reader, and it is something I look at when reading works in any of my classes for workshop.
ReplyDeleteI really like how you presented the question, and it is certainly one we have to think deeply on. When is it too much? Who gets to decide when it is too much or too little? There are so many things to consider with this. I think it depends on what type of audience you are trying to reach, or what type of person is reading the material. I love a flowy, creative argument that hits all the points it needs to, but I also think that argument needs to be clear. Interpretation is fun, but at some point it becomes frustrating if you have to understand what is being said to understand and enjoy the material, or if you do not interpret it correctly you misunderstand and use the work in a way that was not intended. I think it is a very fine line that authors have to walk, especially in a world where anything can have multiple meanings and many different people read things in many different ways.
Brooke, great questions! I personally think that an argument being made in a text should maintain a level of subtlety while still getting the point across in a clear and precise manner. I think that craft and artistry can impede the audience’s ability to interpret your intended meaning at the point when the subtlety of the argument becomes obscured and hidden behind it.
ReplyDeleteTherefore, I think it's important to balance this artistry and creativity with whatever argument you are trying to get across in order for the meaning behind your piece to be clear enough for your readers to create a solid interpretation of the piece that lines up with your desired intention behind the meaning of the piece.
These are great questions! I think the clarity of the arguments all depends on the end point that the author intends to share with their audience. Sometimes there is arguments for both sides for an ending in nuetrality. I think in this specific essay the goal was perhaps to argue with the visual, to show you instead of tell you so the reader is able to make a decision for themselves.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that craft or artistry ever impedes on the writings message. I think that the use of imagery and creativity only can enhance the piece by showing/telling you things just in different ways, like form or poetic language. I think the real question is how far is the reader willing to go to understand the authors message?
Brooke, I love this question! It's interesting because I believe memoir, or personal story, can actually be the basis for the essay. What I mean by this, is that it is possible that the arguing point is best illustrated through personal story. For instance, if you tell someone "the girl lashed out and she should be punished", you might first assume that the girl has done something bad and she needs to reap the repercussions. But if you were to situate this arguing point within the context of personal story which explains the girls life leading up to the incident, you might find that the girl was desperate, angry, sad, and defensive because she had encountered abuse in her past. This context of personal story actually completely changes and clarifies the arguing point. Instead of thinking the girl is bad and she should be penalized there is a shift to, "this girl needs support and care because she is lashing out due to her unresolved trauma". Even though this is an example and completely unrelated to the actual content of the reading, I feel it illustrates how personal story and memoir, instead of acting as detail and support of the arguing point, actually becomes the instrument in creating it.
ReplyDeleteWhen does craft and artistry begin to impede the audience’s ability to interpret your intended meaning?
When we think about craft and artistry, at least for me, this becomes a tricky line. Because, let's be honest, all writing is an art and well, art has no boundaries. Even when we look at literature today things don't always stay the same. There are new forms of poetry being implemented and widely accepted quite consistently. The way writers used to be structured and limited on the content they could speak on is now shifting to a more free, open, and outwardly expressive literary culture. I love it! So when I ask myself when does the creativity become too much? Well it's hard for me to answer, because perhaps my criticisms are just personal biases and preferences, which in the end are worthy of comment, but in reality how can I judge someone else's extent of artistry? The only way I really feel artistry and craft can be too much is perhaps if the opinions and biases of the creator come out in a demeaning or un-factual way. This would cause me to question the credibility of the author, even after the personal memoir, because I would question if their view of reality is tainted by whatever reason expressed in the craft of the writer.
I really enjoyed reading this piece. The author seemed very passionate about what he was writing about. He discussed how he shot a deer but had felt bad afterwards and rarely hunted if at all after that. What stood out was that he had said that his father had only said he was proud of him twice in his life, once then and once after he graduated. This was very sad because when he felt the worst his father was so proud of him. To answer your question I think it depends on the subject how clear a writer should be in making his argument. I found that his argument was strengthen by he points he included into the piece. I think that craft and artistry impede one's ability to find the meaning when it becomes the main focus of the piece, in his piece though the readers still understood that he was talking about guns but also his father and his relationship. We gained a lot of insight about this author and his relationship to his dad.
ReplyDelete